In proceedings for partition, parties with potential rights to the property are necessary for adjudication to ensure complete justice and fair representation.

ORDER :

Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

2. Parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are proposed defendant Nos.8, 9 and 10 before the trial Court seeking to implead themselves as defendants in a suit for partition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court.

4. It is stated that the impleading applicants have filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead themselves as defendant Nos.8 to 10 in O.S.1990/2018. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application, wherein at para-6, it is stated as under:

"6. I submit that we have joined all sites together measuring 7200 sq ft and we have put construction in 26000 sq.ft with ground plus 3 floors and a temporary structure for canteen in 4^th floor by taking necessary permissions from competent authorities and the joint khata is accepted and taxes are accessed to the building and Applicants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The Copy of photos are produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble court."

5. Accordingly, the impleading applicants sought to implead themselves, as they have a right over the portion of 7200 square feet of the properties in the schedule mentioned in the partition suit. They also contended that in the event of any decree that would be passed in favour of the plaintiffs or the defendants, their rights would be affected and in order to safeguard their right over the properties to an extent of 7200 square feet, they filed an application to implead themselves as defendant Nos.8, 9 and 10 in the suit.

6. The plaintiffs have filed a memo to the said application, which reads as under :

"The plaintiffs submit that, they were given to understand an area of 4800 Square feet has been sold by the first defendant who was exercising all the acts of ownership in respect of plaint schedule item No.6 property, despite the property being purchased in the name of the fourth defendant in the above case. Since the impelading applicants are claiming title to an extent of 7200 Square feet they may be proper parties to the above suit and their participation may ensure fair and complete adjudication of the matter in dispute. Wherefore the plaintiffs submit that they have no objection to allow I.A.No.54. This Hon'ble court may be pleased to record the same in the interest of justice and equity."

7. In effect, the plaintiffs do not have any objection to the application filed by the impleading applicants being allowed. The other defendants in the original suit have also filed their objections to the said application, stating that the impleading applicants are not proper and necessary parties to the suit for partition, as they have their own independent right to agitate upon the right of the vendor of the applicants. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the said application.

8. After hearing the learned counsels for parties, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the impleading applicants are strangers and they are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. It has also come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not aware of the actual extent of the properties sold in favour of the impleading applicants i.e., 7200 square feet and that is why they mentioned in the plaint the exclusion of 4800 square feet of a complex, namely Balaji Complex and they came to know only when the applicants filed the impleading application along with the registered Sale Deed that the properties that was sold by defendant No.4 to the impleading applicants measuring to an extent of 7200 square feet.

9. It is stated that an opportunity was given to the plaintiffs to carry-out the amendment in the plaint in respect of item No.6 of the suit schedule properties and even if the plaintiffs fail to carry-out the amendment, the trial Court can restrict the claim of the parties while giving judg